Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One more point. If a 'Shoota' Nob may take a Powerclaw than he may also take a Big Choppa instead. Giving him two two-handed weapons; a first in 40k IIRC.

DA guys can have lightning claws and a combi weapon.

Chaos lords can have a daemon weapon and a combi weapon/TL bolter...

Is that a pair of Lightning claws and a combi-weapon? They made Daemon weapons two handed? Another reason to hate codex CSM.

deadlygopher wrote:Why does RAI favor the YES camp?

Well, mostly because the pictures released to date for the new Ork Codex have Nobs with powerklaws included with shooty boy mobs.

This is all besides the point anyways, there's nothing in the rules as they are written that prevents the entire mob from exchanging their sluggas and choppas for shootas just because one of the models doesn't have both a slugga and a choppa.

Buoyancy wrote:

Well, mostly because the pictures released to date for the new Ork Codex have Nobs with powerklaws included with shooty boy mobs.

This is all besides the point anyways, there's nothing in the rules as they are written that prevents the entire mob from exchanging their sluggas and choppas for shootas just because one of the models doesn't have both a slugga and a choppa.

I won't re-iterate the points I've made a couple of times already. Basically, the question I'm posing is why should you be allowed to do it when the rule is the "entire mob," and the nob is a member of the mob and COULD do the exchange?

deadlygopher wrote:I won't re-iterate the points I've made a couple of times already. Basically, the question I'm posing is why should you be allowed to do it when the rule is the "entire mob," and the nob is a member of the mob and COULD do the exchange?

Because the nob can only make the exchange if you haven't already given him a powerklaw. Since no order is specified in the rules, you are free to add items in any order you wish.

Why are you free to apply rules in any order? Seriously, I'd ask that you peruse the previous posts on this topic, there are a few. What you need to establish is why some rules can be applied in any order and why others cannot. An argument to this point must be more than permissive to conclusively defeat my counter, as I have claimed the rules must support a concurrent application, and so far no one has advanced an example as to why that must be incorrect. A theory on order of rules application has already been advanced above. Check it out. If you accept it, and there's nothing faulty with that, we will currently be at an impass.

I think this might be the most repetitive thread since Tank Shock Off the Table 2006.

"Entire mob may" means this

No, "entire mob may" means that

"no no no, it's about the order of operations"

No, "entire mob may" means this

If GW wanted you not to be able to put a PK on the Knob in a shoota boys mob they would have either:
a) separated the entries into "shoota boyz" and "slugga boyz"
b) specifically said "the Nob must exchange blah blah"

It's pretty much universal them to do either of those things if they want to provide a restriction (see the no terminator armor with a normal command squad in C:SM, and hundreds of other examples throughout every codex).

You can read it either way but there's not going to be any conclusive evidence outside of a Gw intervention. it's all in readings of words and phrases, and so isn't really arguable. What you guys are arguing is grammar not rules or logic. Since ambiguities exist in the English language, it's going to be impossible to prove one way or the other.

However, you can know that everyone's gonna put pks on their nobs and if you bring it up in a tourney a judge will certainly make fun of you.

DeadlyGopher wrote: While I'm glad you were awake in logic, your fallacy is that you require us to presume a unit's layout is in itself meaningful, and not just a convenient way to organize the unit's rules. GW has never articulated to users that we should adopt this approach in unit creation, nor do I believe it's common sense. I mean no offense, but this sounds like an artificial rationale that's meant to sound smart enough to keep most people from replying.

Considering I've taught classes in introductory logic I should hope I was awake for them! Now, had you paid attention you would have noticed that I did not presume that a unit's layout is meaningful. That the unit's layout is 'informationally significant' is given by the Codex itself when it describes how Characters are a type of Upgrade. In other words the Codex itself tells us that the layout is meaningful! Now if that sounds like an artificial rationale that's meant to sound smart enough to keep most people from replying, that might be because smart people (who, being smart, would check to see if that was a "artificial rationale" or actually a method of formal semantics) know enough that it's right and see that there is no valid objection to it.

DeadlyGopher wrote:Why do I assert the unit's organization is nothing more than convenient? Because I don’t need to. The rules are clear when viewed together. Big shootas / rokkits can still be used because they may come from an exchange of either sluggas/choppas or shootas. Yet the nob doesn’t have this luxury. And yes, while you might classify the former and the shoota exchange as a set of interchangable rules, there’s no reason they need to be, and again, because your approach is neither intuitive nor identified by GW, nor required to get a valid interpretation, I see no reason to adopt it nor abandon the very common sense and workable presumption that unit creation rules ought to be simultaneous.

Well, considering that the Codex itself, and thus by extension GW itself, asserts that the entry organization follows a particular schema then that should suggest to you that the unit's organization is more than merely convenient. So yes, it is identified by GW. If my approach is not intuitive to you, then I recommend taking a few courses in critical thinking and formal logic to build yourself some intuitions on the subject (more conveniently just go read up on the subject, it's cheaper and just as effective!). Considering that, if I recall correctly, our interpretations disagree while yours ignores the information provided by GW and mine is derived using conventional methods of formal logic (i.e.: those methods required to get deductively valid interpretations of information), I'd say 'mine' (not actually mine, since I didn't invent it) is required to get a valid interpretation. I'd say you have two good and inter-related reasons to adopt it: (1) It uses all of the relevant information provided by GW rather than assuming anything, and (2) It employs the rigour of formal logic, thereby guaranteeing validity if done correctly (i.e.: barring the sort of error that we are all familiar with from learning arithmetic in primary school). Likewise, as Einstein indicated, common sense is that set of prejudices we have accrued by such-and-such an age and no good reason to do anything. There's a reason nobody uses common sense instead of formal logic when doing mathematics, science, or engineering, it doesn't lend itself to constructive or effective practice.

DeadlyGopher wrote:Do you have other examples from other codexes, something that would corroborate the necessity of your argument? It’s a new approach so I like where you’re going, but I just don’t see why it’s the necessary approach.

It's necessary because it's the method we'd be required to use in mathematics to assure ourselves of the truth of our results (among other examples), and because the upcoming Ork Codex says that's how to do it. Other entries where the character is upgraded first in order to gain specific upgrades local to that character provide corroboration. The Codex says, describing the entry organization: "Some units have additional options regarding how they may be chosen or fielded, often depending on whether an associated character is taken."

Longshot wrote:I think this might be the most repetitive thread since Tank Shock Off the Table 2006.

Agreed.

Longshot wrote:
If GW wanted you not to be able to put a PK on the Knob in a shoota boys mob they would have either:
a) separated the entries into "shoota boyz" and "slugga boyz"
b) specifically said "the Nob must exchange blah blah"

Or, they might have used wording so that the nob couldn't have some options when the squad has some other options...

Longshot wrote:
You can read it either way but there's not going to be any conclusive evidence outside of a Gw intervention. it's all in readings of words and phrases, and so isn't really arguable. What you guys are arguing is grammar not rules or logic. Since ambiguities exist in the English language, it's going to be impossible to prove one way or the other.

However, you can know that everyone's gonna put pks on their nobs and if you bring it up in a tourney a judge will certainly make fun of you.

I do agree that tournament judges are going to run things however they want. I'm not e-mailing organizers trying to push this view. If a tournament judge made fun of me for posing a rules question I think I'd recognize him or her as having a very sensitive ego. Obviously, however it gets played is how it gets played, but that's no reason to refrain from discussing it in a rules thread.

Nurglitch:
Allowing that the layout is meaningful, I’ve missed how you’ve shown why the character upgrade options must be independently applied from the squad options.

“Other entries where the character is upgraded first in order to gain specific upgrades local to that character provide corroboration.”

But why, when the character is upgraded first, could it not deny other specific options to the rest of the squad? In these other entries you’re thinking of, do the character’s options and upgrades run explicitly counter to how the squad may be equipped?

"Some units have additional options regarding how they may be chosen or fielded, often depending on whether an associated character is taken."

Exactly. The unit’s options regarding how they may be chosen or fielded (ie being able to exchange the entire mob for shootas) depends on whether you have a nob with a PK.

George- None of the newer codices have the “a single two-handed weapon and up to two single handed weapons” limit.

Deadlygopher- I think Yakface, JohnHwangDD, and Robg54 have pretty much covered my thoughts.

The way you apply the word “entire” is a matter of interpretation. John’s point about the lack of an explicit conditional clause

“The "no" interpretation is the one that actually requires a huge conditional clause for the exchange: "If (and only if) the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the entire mob may exchange...". And then it requires another huge conditiona clause for the Nob: "If the entire mob is armed with slugga and choppa, then the Nob may be armed...". Neither of these conditions are explicitly stated, yet such restrictions are present (e.g. if the numbers up to XX models, it may purchase a Transport). Therefore the omission of such restrictions are intentional.”

Is fairly convincing to me.

I also tend to agree with Robg’s opinion (because any read of intent has to be opinion) that the phrasing of the Nob’s equipment swap is designed to make sure the Nob in the shoota squad still has his slugga, so the Nob in either unit has the same number of attacks with his klaw.

The 3rd ed and 4th ed 40k codices have, to my recollection, never imposed a restriction on a squad leader based on the squad’s weapon choice like the one you’re arguing. Equipment upgrades are typically more flexible, and able to be taken it whatever order the player wants. This means that while the phrasing of the squad’s equipment options may be somewhat ambiguous, the precedent is so consistent that even if it IS intended to be restricted as you argue, players are very likely to overlook and/or ignore the restriction.

The Rhino example is the best argument you’ve had for the concept that the squad’s options (though it’s really just the number of guys, not their equipment) can be restricted retroactively based on taking an upgrade, but assigning a squad a transport vehicle (which will then operate independently from deployment on) or extra guys, aren’t quite the same concept as giving them equipment upgrades.

Can you think of another option you can give to a squad which restricts the squad leader’s options for equipment? Or vice versa?

Mannahnin wrote:
The 3rd ed and 4th ed 40k codices have, to my recollection, never imposed a restriction on a squad leader based on the squad’s weapon choice like the one you’re arguing. Equipment upgrades are typically more flexible, and able to be taken it whatever order the player wants. This means that while the phrasing of the squad’s equipment options may be somewhat ambiguous, the precedent is so consistent that even if it IS intended to be restricted as you argue, players are very likely to overlook and/or ignore the restriction.

The Rhino example is the best argument you’ve had for the concept that the squad’s options (though it’s really just the number of guys, not their equipment) can be restricted retroactively based on taking an upgrade, but assigning a squad a transport vehicle (which will then operate independently from deployment on) or extra guys, aren’t quite the same concept as giving them equipment upgrades.

Can you think of another option you can give to a squad which restricts the squad leader’s options for equipment? Or vice versa?

No, and maybe that's just at the heart of it. There doesn't appear to be really good examples of squad options and leader options having the potential to be in direct conflict. Perhaps this is a new situation GW has created. And if that's so, I can be satisfied with a rationale that there's no precedent for interpretation and thus the liklihood of confusion (notwithstanding where the RAW argument falls) weighs for just allowing it and moving on. However, if anyone wants to continue a RAW analysis, I am more than happy to do so.

Mannahnin wrote:
Can you think of another option you can give to a squad which restricts the squad leader’s options for equipment? Or vice versa?

Terminator honors for loyalist command squads. You can only give terminator honors to the entire squad if the Sergeant gets it first.

skyth wrote:
Terminator honors for loyalist command squads. You can only give terminator honors to the entire squad if the Sergeant gets it first.

I don't have the codex, but sure. That would certaintly support the argument that you equip squad leaders first.

DeadlyGopher wrote:Allowing that the layout is meaningful, I’ve missed how you’ve shown why the character upgrade options must be independently applied from the squad options.

I've shown it by citing the relevant passage from the Codex, where it details how character upgrades interact with unit upgrades.

DeadlyGopher wrote:But why, when the character is upgraded first, could it not deny other specific options to the rest of the squad? In these other entries you’re thinking of, do the character’s options and upgrades run explicitly counter to how the squad may be equipped?

The Ork Nobz, Kommandos, Boyz, Stormboyz, and Flashgitz entries all have character upgrades upon which some unit upgrades are conditional. The unit upgrade for cyborks in the Nobz entry, for example, depends on whether a Nob has the Painboy character upgrade. As the Codex says, these unit upgrades are additional to the ordinary unit upgrades, as well as being conditional upon the character upgrade taken.

DeadlyGopher wrote:Exactly. The unit’s options regarding how they may be chosen or fielded (ie being able to exchange the entire mob for shootas) depends on whether you have a nob with a PK.

That is incorrect. The shoota unit upgrade says: "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas...free". The sentence contains an explicit modal operator: "may", signifying logical possibility or contingency. This means that if some condition is in place, then some consequence obtains . The condition is having both a slugga and a choppa. Thus if any Orks in the mob have a slugga and a choppa, then they exchange those two weapons for a single shoota. If a Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa, then it does not meet the conditions to upgrade to a shoota. So although an Ork in the mob, the Nob, does not exchange its choppa and slugga for a shoota that does not contradict the quantifier "entire" whose scope is "the...mob". The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas, if they have that combination of weapons to replace!

quote=deadlygopher]Why are you free to apply rules in any order? Seriously, I'd ask that you peruse the previous posts on this topic, there are a few. What you need to establish is why some rules can be applied in any order and why others cannot. An argument to this point must be more than permissive to conclusively defeat my counter, as I have claimed the rules must support a concurrent application, and so far no one has advanced an example as to why that must be incorrect. A theory on order of rules application has already been advanced above. Check it out. If you accept it, and there's nothing faulty with that, we will currently be at an impass.

This question is worthless. Its revolves around ridicuRAW on a par with terminators not having terminator armour and how to get a T4(6) space marine. All it says is that you cannot mix 'sluggaboyz' and 'shootaboyz' in the same mob and in true Gw fashion does so badly. Its not exactly unclear, but Codex Loophole is itself part of the cultre of 40K. If the same wording was used in a Warmachine unit write up noone would claim to have a problem working out what it means.

So I voted NO. Ya cant have a power klaw nob because all the other nods have taken da power klaws. Someone has to get the big choppa so it has to be the shootanob, coz he doesnt get stuck in with the rest of the ladz. I dont care if the weapon stat isnt good enough, having one ork conversion with a two handed cleaver from the Ironguts boxset is mandatory.

Nurglitch wrote:
The Ork Nobz, Kommandos, Boyz, Stormboyz, and Flashgitz entries all have character upgrades upon which some unit upgrades are conditional. The unit upgrade for cyborks in the Nobz entry, for example, depends on whether a Nob has the Painboy character upgrade. As the Codex says, these unit upgrades are additional to the ordinary unit upgrades, as well as being conditional upon the character upgrade taken.

Sure, that’s a valid point, although not quite analogous. The examples you provide (I’ll focus on the nob’z painboy – cybork body rules) illustrate only a set of options that must be taken in tandem, not in conflict with each other. If we adopt a theory of concurrent application, there isn’t necessarily a problem. One might say the cybork body option isn’t a “squad” option, but because it’s subsumed by the character options, it’s a character option that applies to the squad. Then if we adopt a top-down, left-right theory of order, in which case the nob gets upgraded after the squad, there’s also no problem because no rules we applied to the squad will be in conflict with what we want to do with the character. And the options the character makes available to the squad don’t stand in conflict with anything that’s already been done. But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

Nurglitch wrote:
That is incorrect. The shoota unit upgrade says: "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas...free". The sentence contains an explicit modal operator: "may", signifying logical possibility or contingency. This means that if some condition is in place, then some consequence obtains . The condition is having both a slugga and a choppa. Thus if any Orks in the mob have a slugga and a choppa, then they exchange those two weapons for a single shoota. If a Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa, then it does not meet the conditions to upgrade to a shoota. So although an Ork in the mob, the Nob, does not exchange its choppa and slugga for a shoota that does not contradict the quantifier "entire" whose scope is "the...mob". The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas, if they have that combination of weapons to replace!

True…. if the nob can do his exchange first.

To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

In any case, there appears to be more reasonable precedent to support a theory that characters get upgrades first rather than everything happening concurrently. And on that I’m willing to allow PK nobz in shoota mobs. To keep the discussion going there would need to be an accepted example where the squad’s options affect what the character can take, showing that either the squad is built first, or at least, concurrently.

deadlygopher wrote:But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

And without access to the actual text in question, if I've read your posts correctly. It might help if you actually read the text. It's unambiguous.

deadlygopher wrote:True…. if the nob can do his exchange first.

Yes, that is what the Codex says.

deadlygopher wrote:To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

Except that a Nob doesn't exhange his shoota for a powerklaw. He exchanges his choppa for a powerklaw. He could, as part of the entire mob, exchange his slugga and choppa for a shoota if he did not upgrade his weapons. A Nob cannot exchange a shoota for a powerklaw. So it's not a problem.

And while such an argument might be inevitable it is not a problem with the rules, it is a problem with the unrequiting pigged-headed stupidity of humanity.

deadlygopher wrote:In any case, there appears to be more reasonable precedent to support a theory that characters get upgrades first rather than everything happening concurrently. And on that I’m willing to allow PK nobz in shoota mobs. To keep the discussion going there would need to be an accepted example where the squad’s options affect what the character can take, showing that either the squad is built first, or at least, concurrently.

No, if the text indicates that one thing is conditional upon another and the modal operators are fixed to allow for varying conditions, then that is the order to be followed. If a unit upgrade is conditional upon a character upgrade, then that character must be upgraded before the unit may be upgraded. Whether some other unit entry followed a different format is irrelevant to the format specified in the Ork Codex and the ordering explicitly cited for that format.

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:But I admit, I’m postulating without precedent.

And without access to the actual text in question, if I've read your posts correctly. It might help if you actually read the text. It's unambiguous.

No, I have the ork codex, that's not what I said. Perhaps you should read my posts. And as to whether character upgrades happen before or are allowed to happen before squad upgrades is far from unambiguous, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:To cite Rob’s point, I agree it would be inevitable that someone would argue a nob who exchanged his shoota for a PK would have done so after having given up his choppa. Of course, what you’re arguing for now is the same argument you’d have to make then – that the nob’s exchange can happen before the squad’s exchange. Haha!

Except that a Nob doesn't exhange his shoota for a powerklaw. He exchanges his choppa for a powerklaw. He could, as part of the entire mob, exchange his slugga and choppa for a shoota if he did not upgrade his weapons. A Nob cannot exchange a shoota for a powerklaw. So it's not a problem.

And while such an argument might be inevitable it is not a problem with the rules, it is a problem with the unrequiting pigged-headed stupidity of humanity.

Read the post. We were talking about what might have been if the rule had been written differently.

More importantly, I take issue that you feel a rules question is “unrequiting pig-headed stupidity of humanity.” If a rules question comes up, it shouldn’t be so beneath you to address it, this is a rules forum after all. In a game situation, call a judge or dice it. What kind of teacher adopts such an attitude?

Futhermore, even allowing your analysis, it’s not necessarily appropriate to infer a line of reasoning simply because its logical. People aren’t mathematicians. They pick up a codex and follow common sense reasoning, which is what we should apply when discussing rules. It’s perfectly reasonable to say there’s a top-down/left-to-right approach, because that’s how our eyes trace it. It’s also reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order, that it’s just a bunch of rules that in the end result must all be valid. That’s why I emphasized precedent. If people did things in an accepted way before they’re likely to approach similar problems in the same way. So that’s why I tried to drive the discussion towards finding the necessary order of rules application, of which I accept your method as viable, and why I asked for the examples I asked for. You strode into this thread with a theory that so rigid so as to reject out of hand anything that was contrary to it. That works in bullying, and perhaps in certain types of classrooms, but not everywhere. In fact, it smacks at some of that pig-headedness you’re willing to impute to those who would ask a question.

deadlygopher wrote:No, I have the ork codex, that's not what I said. Perhaps you should read my posts. And as to whether character upgrades happen before or are allowed to happen before squad upgrades is far from unambiguous, despite your assertions to the contrary.

So I read your posts incorrectly. But speaking of reading correctly, I haven't asserted anything to the contrary that the ordering of upgrades in the Ork Boyz unit entry is ambiguous. I've pointed out that the Codex says otherwise and cited it.

deadlygopher wrote:Read the post. We were talking about what might have been if the rule had been written differently.

I had read the post. The rule would be the same no matter how it was expressed. From the way some people have been talking about it on this thread it would seem that they were talking about what might have been the case if the rule had been written the way they wanted, or the way they read things (quite different from how they should read things, but people always confuse the descriptive with the normative), or the way other texts are written. A discussion of what might have been the case if some rule had been written differently should be very short, consisting of the question and one answer: "The same rule, written differently."

Sometimes people try to write things differently to explore the content of the text itself. Certainly that's one basic procedure, called "conceptual analysis", where one expresses a statement various ways to check text for implicit logical structures. But there's better, quicker, methods available since conceptual analysis is typically limited by incongruities between the grammars of natural language and the structures of logic and occasionally devolves into a vicious circle of inter-definitional synonymy (a fancy way to say the exhaustive list of possible permutations does not obtain a well-formed logical structure) by way of amphiboly (single terms having two or more ambiguous extensions). So you get discussions on the Internet where even defined terms fail the interlocators because they are not well-defined. A better way of doing it is by layered decomposition, where the terms, grammar, and semantics of the terms are gradually stripped away and laid out (rather like an exploded diagram) so that the parts and their relations can be well-defined and thus clearly understood, and matched to a semantic model.

deadlygopher wrote:More importantly, I take issue that you feel a rules question is “unrequiting pig-headed stupidity of humanity.” If a rules question comes up, it shouldn’t be so beneath you to address it, this is a rules forum after all. In a game situation, call a judge or dice it. What kind of teacher adopts such an attitude?

You should take issue with that concept. However I pointed out that where the rule is clear and unambiguous it was a problem with the readers, not the text. If a rues question comes up it should never be beneath us to address it. However if someone is either unable or unwilling to accept the correct answer to such a question due to their own deficiencies it is hardly unfair for their interlocators to point out that deficiency, whatever its source. A good teacher adopts the attitude that if they've explained the method used to obtain the correct answer, and check that it is so, then the deficiency lies with the student and marks them accordingly. But I'm not a teacher here. I'm just another interlocator whose only duty is to identify the correct method and check the answer obtained.

deadlygopher wrote:Futhermore, even allowing your analysis, it’s not necessarily appropriate to infer a line of reasoning simply because its logical.

Quite true. You cannot judge the appropriateness of a line of reasoning syntactically (though interestingly one can judge relevance on the grounds of pure logic. See: Relevance Logic). One must have a semantic model as well.

deadlygopher wrote:People aren’t mathematicians.

I'd like to apologize for picking your post apart sentence by sentence like this, and I shouldn't, but this is important and needs to be addressed in its own module. I agree that people aren't mathematicians. That's why the practice of mathematics and logic has been adopted, so that objective and well-defined solutions can be found for problems. Where we apply the practices of mathematics and logic to a discussion with care and precision (and a hearty helping of humility everyone on the Internet finds lacking in each other...) we can find solutions without the discussion devolving into nasty bickering, which is not to say that the history of mathematics and logic isn't replete with such unfortunate occurrences, just that advances occur and objective results are obtained when they are absent.

deadlygopher wrote:They pick up a codex and follow common sense reasoning, which is what we should apply when discussing rules. It’s perfectly reasonable to say there’s a top-down/left-to-right approach, because that’s how our eyes trace it.

That's how English readers do it, sure. Other people go bottom-up or right-to-left, or simply switch directions as indicated. To simply assume this without a well-defined reason for doing so opens us up to unresolvable error unless we can step back and evaluate our assumptions and our reasons for positing them. Unfortunately most people only get the barest mathematical training (let alone learning) so they do not casually employ universally effective methods, but merely locally effective methods that may or may not be universalizable to the problems at hand. Indeed, whenever we say something is "perfectly reasonable" we should also provide (if it hasn't already been provided) what schema of reason we are making our judgment of reasonableness by. Some logicians (Tarski most prominently) would suggest this leads to an infinite regress of assumptions and meta-assumptions, but other (perhaps wiser) logicians have shown that this can be avoided by a rigorous account of self-reference. Nonetheless even where we allow for self-reference in regard to putative values of reasonable-ness, we need an explicit account so that when intractable problem cases inevitably arise we can go back armed with important information needed to change our assumptions.

deadlygopher wrote:It’s also reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order, that it’s just a bunch of rules that in the end result must all be valid. That’s why I emphasized precedent. If people did things in an accepted way before they’re likely to approach similar problems in the same way. So that’s why I tried to drive the discussion towards finding the necessary order of rules application, of which I accept your method as viable, and why I asked for the examples I asked for.

It would be reasonable to explore the notion that there is no order if in fact there was no order-schema (there is) or that order-schema failed in certain cases. The question at hand is the latter, being whether it fails in the case of the Ork Boyz entry, which naturally must address what counts as failure, what information is available to support the purportive order-schema, and the relation between them. What seems to count as failure, for some, is the restricted combinatoriality of the Ork Boyz entry. But as I think has been mentioned our expectations about the rules are irrelevant to what the rules actually say and by that stricture no such restricted combinatoriality could count as failure; 'the rules are the rules', one might say.

But with regard to precedent, precedence in these cases is subject to considerations of relevance. What is relevant to the order of upgrades in the Ork Boyz entry is the ordering schema provided in the book itself, and the examples of it also given in the book. What is relevant to our method of deciding what we do with that schema and its examples is a wider matter, the precedents for which are the methods of inquiry used in such a subject, the subject of semantics (not the pejorative talking-past-each-other "Oh, that's just semantics" semantics, but the formal study thereof). Fortunately the basics, which is all we need to decide the question at hand, are available for free on the Internet (which frankly irritates me because the textbooks were damned expensive back in the day). While trying to come up with a specific theory of Warhammer semantics without regard to the established edifice of knowledge is admirable I don't think we have the decades to retrace the steps leading to what is now established logical practice. If only for considerations of convenience we should accept the precedence of knowledge we have available to us, rather than heroically fail in trying to do things in 'back-of the-envelope' way. At worst the unlearned will learn something handy, and at best the problem will be solved and we can devote our time to solving other rule problems.

deadlygopher wrote:You strode into this thread with a theory that so rigid so as to reject out of hand anything that was contrary to it. That works in bullying, and perhaps in certain types of classrooms, but not everywhere. In fact, it smacks at some of that pig-headedness you’re willing to impute to those who would ask a question.

This comment brings me back to my first class in introductory logic, when I didn't understand that it was up to me to pick up the tools and use them rather than simply watch the professor and expect to learn via some magical osmosis. This isn't a classroom, as mentioned, but the problem of attitude is. At least in the classroom there's the assumption that if somebody starts talking about stuff you're not immediately familiar with you either try to find out if it is familiar or try to learn something new, rather than assume they're simply doing it to sound clever (the bane of professors everywhere because there's always one student that tries) or to bully people.

It's interesting that my logic professors back in the day would warn against one trying to use the practices of formal logic "as a club to bludgeon people". They recognized that to people without mathematical training that's exactly what those people, used to the competitive artsy world of 'debate' rather than the co-operative scientific world of analysis (yeah, it happens with people in the empirical sciences too, but virtually unheard of in the formal sciences). What they actually do (as opposed to say to their students), to follow this club analogy, is they bludgeon people anyways after giving them the decent opportunity to select their own club and learn how to use it. I prefer to think of it as providing not only the club, but suggesting that instead of engaging in some sort of silly rhetorical and logical combat to work together in bashing the problem into the shape of an answer. One reason I would suggest this is because I would hardly call the methods of mathematical logic "rigid", although the basic methods of formal semantics are certainly static for the time being. They are flexible, surprisingly user-friendly (one of the main driving forces in their development, there's a reason nobody uses Newton's notation for calculus these days!), and useful for those who are willing to use them rather than assume the worst.

wasn't this the source of much discussion on another thread.

Wasn't what? What is the "this" intended to refer to? Rather hard to answer otherwise.

What irritates me lately about this discussion is how the "NO" camp blissfully and willfully ignores the ability of fighty S&C Boyz to take shooty Rokkit-type upgrades in their argument that shooty Boyz shouldn't have a fighty Nob with PK.

If the designers had somehow intended that shooty shouldn't mix with fighty, why is that expressly allowed for the Boyz?

Again, if the intent were for monolithic bloc Boyz with narrow options, it would have been very easy to separate the units into Shoota Boyz with Rokkits, and S&C Boyz with PK Nobz. But that isn't what the rules have.

In the mean time, I'm going to stop talking about the technical discussion about "entire", because it's pointless to discuss with someone who doesn't have basic English language comprehension skills.

@Nurglitch, I'm really impressed with your patience here. I just can't talk to a wall like you can.

Well, it helps to assume you're talking to a person and not a wall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:What irritates me lately about this discussion is how the "NO" camp blissfully and willfully ignores the ability of fighty S&C Boyz to take shooty Rokkit-type upgrades in their argument that shooty Boyz shouldn't have a fighty Nob with PK.

If the designers had somehow intended that shooty shouldn't mix with fighty, why is that expressly allowed for the Boyz?

Again, if the intent were for monolithic bloc Boyz with narrow options, it would have been very easy to separate the units into Shoota Boyz with Rokkits, and S&C Boyz with PK Nobz. But that isn't what the rules have.

In the mean time, I'm going to stop talking about the technical discussion about "entire", because it's pointless to discuss with someone who doesn't have basic English language comprehension skills.

@Nurglitch, I'm really impressed with your patience here. I just can't talk to a wall like you can.

The argument I had been supporting expressly accounted for why slugga or shoota boyz could have rokkits. Man, seriously, go back and read the posts.

Slightly left by mr Nurglitches very detailed analysis, Shameful really considering i studied computer science at uni, however i'v managed to follow it through in part.

Going back to the 'human' factor, meant in the average joe GW games designer, Its pretty acceptable to assume said average joes are not on par with some of the exceptional logical reasoning displayed above (hense the RAW debates) or apply such rules in the formation of a codex.

Maybe its because I have a 'somewhat' technical background that i read the boyz entry immidately that there was no sequential order to upgrade the character.
It seemed obvious to me without thinking about it that taking a nob swapping the choppa for a PK auto excluded him from the s+c to s swap.

I just think the whole thing isnt really written to any real well formed elegant structure and is infact a mish mash of cut'n'pastes from other entries and just pure bad writing.

For example:

As i remember reading there are references to 'mob' in the options. However what is a mob? I can give my mob of orks a rokkit in exchange for something. However currently I dont know what a mob is. It is obvious using the most basic of common sense that the mob is the unit of boyz as a whole, but from what i can remember this is never defined.

What is an Ork? It says Orks in the mob can be upgraded. The unit entry mentions Boy and Nob, Later it mentions 'Ork Boyz' but is that the same as an Ork in the reference used the 'options' section and in that vain why do i remember seeing that the option for a Nob upgrade in infact from a 'boy' to a 'nob'. Should this not be from Ork to Nob like the options above?

The Battlewagon says you can "Take 'any' of the following:"
Killcannon.
etc...

The use of the word any is a bit odd here, does that mean i can take 400kill cannons on my battle wagon? Even later options make it explicit that you can only take a certain number of them e.g. 4 big shootas etcc. Of course it 'means' take any as in any combination of one upgrade e.g. one killcannon, one boarding plank etc... but there is room for debate.

I know its anal and silly the above, but its just an example of how in depth reading of GW products can cause mental stress. For example if the space marine codex had such bad model naming conventions space marine sergeants could take plasmaguns.

Just to mirky the waters even more, if you look at the new Ork Spearhead box, it clearly shows a squad of Boyz with Shootas and a PK Nob.

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&code=301952&orignav=9&ParentID=259754&GameNav=301466

Latro_ wrote:It seemed obvious to me without thinking about it that taking a nob swapping the choppa for a PK auto excluded him from the s+c to s swap.

That's the problem with the obvious. It tends to make one overlook the evidence. Yes, that is a quote from Grissom on CSI: Las Vegas...

ubermosher: How does that muddy the waters? It appears to be consistent with close-reading of the Ork Boyz unit entry.